Quote:

Why Donald Trump had to sack FBI boss James Comey THE hysterical reporting of Donald Trump’s sacking of FBI boss James Comey ignores one thing: the facts. We’re told the US President sacked Comey to stop him investigating his campaign’s alleged collusion with the Russian government to influence last year’s election. Democratic congresswoman Maxine Waters even claimed on US cable network MSNBC last week that Russian President Vladimir Putin helped Trump “develop” his campaign slogans. True, Waters admitted, there was no evidence of any collusion, but “calling Hillary crooked, the ‘lock her up, lock her up,’ all of that was developed, I think that was developed strategically with people from the Kremlin, with Putin”.  ::) This is seriously nuts, yet the MSNBC host didn’t question it. In fact, the media questions few anti-Trump claims in a manic desperation to write their dream story — Trump sacked Comey because he, himself, is corrupt. But there is a serious problem with this story — the three letters that led to Comey’s sacking and prove Trump had no choice. The first is from Deputy Attorney-General Rod Rosenstein, who worked for Democratic president Bill Clinton and is so respected by both sides of politics that the Senate confirmed his nomination by 94 votes to 6. On May 9, Rosenstein wrote a report to his boss, Attorney-General Jeff Sessions, concluding that Comey had overstepped his authority as FBI director when he had announced during the campaign the FBI was dropping its case against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton for having used a private email server when she was Secretary of State. Rosenstein said that call was not Comey’s to make. His job was simply to present the FBI’s evidence to President Barack Obama’s attorney-general and let her decide. Instead, Comey had “announced his own conclusions about the nation’s most sensitive criminal investigation”, and then made it worse by publicly criticising Clinton anyway. “The director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation,’ wrote Rosenstein, a veteran public prosecutor. “It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.” Rosenstein cited a long list of former attorneys-general and deputy attorneys-general from both sides of politics, as far back as the Ford administration, who had condemned Comey. For instance, former attorney-general Michael Mukasey, who served under president George W. Bush, said Comey had “stepped way outside his job”. Another Bush appointee said he had been left “astonished and perplexed”. Eric Holder, Obama’s deputy attorney-general, agreed Comey had “violated longstanding Justice Department policies and traditions”. Rosenstein wrote that a decision to sack Comey “should not be taken lightly”, but “the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a director who understands the gravity of the mistakes, and pledges never to repeat them”. But Comey had “refused to admit his errors”, and so “cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions”. Having read Rosenstein’s report, Attorney-General Jeff Sessions wrote to Trump recommending Comey be sacked: “The director of the FBI must be someone who follows faithfully the rules and principles.” Trump then told Comey he was fired, because it was “essential that we find new leadership for the FBI that restores public trust and confidence”. He was doing this, he said, even though “I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation”. So what on earth is the scandal here? What is so unjustifiable about Comey’s sacking? True, Trump has, with his big mouth and dangerous indiscipline, made muddy what was clear, later saying he would have sacked Comey anyway and did so because of the FBI’s Russian investigation. Comey kicked that story along by claiming through “friends” that Trump had tried to stop him from investigating the alleged links between Russia and former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who was sacked by Trump for lying. Comey claims Trump in February told him: “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy.” But was that just Trump issuing an order or just stupidly expressing a hope? Curiously, just a week before his sacking, Comey testified on oath to a Senate committee that he had never been “told to stop something for a political reason”. “It’s not happened in my experience.” Nor has any FBI investigation been stopped. Instead, Rosenstein has since also appointed a special prosecutor to also check any links between the Trump campaign and Russia. Yet the media is full of hyperventilating stories of Trump sacking a brave FBI boss for investigating the President’s crimes. As fake news goes, this one’s on steroids.

Fake News on Steroids...

and the biggest witch hunt on a US President in America's history being pushed all along by leftist media being run by the deep state...

Not sure if its on steroids, since theres no attribution.


Could be plaigarism on steroids though

The FBI didn't prosecute because they found that Hillary did not commit a crime. They said that Hillary left her IT matters in the hands of her staff. They said Hillary is technically illiterate. They said there was no evidence that any top secret information ended up in the wrong hands. Because of this, there was no intent on Hillary's behalf to breach security protocols, and as such, not enough evidence of crime to take to a prosecutor.

This was all in their report.

As Trump told the Russians, he sacked Comey over "the Russia thing". He crowed over sacking Comey, relishing the part of the boss firing employees.

The FBI Director, however, is not a political office. Directors rise through the ranks based on their expertise. They play an active role in investigations - unlike the post of CIA Director, which has more of a political oversight role. Lose an FBI Director, and you lose their knowledge, experience and leadership.

Sacking Comey is, perhaps, the biggest mistake Trump's made to date. It is a prima facie case of obstruction of justice, and to no end for Trump. The investigation into Trump just got heavier. Where the FBI found no evidence of Hillary's email server being a criminal matter, Trump's sacking of Comey, on the face of it, is indeed evidence of a crime.

Where were Trump's advisors?

The person who benefited most from Comey's investigation into Hillary was Trump. Announcing an investigation two weeks before the election definitely cost Hillary votes. She dropped two points in the polls, and those points almost certainly would have counted in some of the states Trump won.

Jeff Sessions was only following Trump's orders. The decision to fire Comey  was Trump's. Trump had already threatened to fire Comey in February. Jeff Sessions would have been insane to meddle in all this after he recused himself from the investigation into Trump. Sessions' business dealings with Russia are suspicious enough. An obstruction of justice charge would almost certainly see Sessions do time, and Watergate is the precedent.

He sacked him because he was an untrustworthy slimy bastard who tried to play both sides of the fence.

Fuzzball wrote on May 22^nd, 2017 at 12:26pm:

He sacked him because he was an untrustworthy slimy bastard who tried to play both sides of the fence.

That's not grounds for dismissal, Matty. The FBI directorship is not a political office.

Imagine if Turnbull sacked you.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on May 22^nd, 2017 at 10:48am:

Quote: Why Donald Trump had to sack FBI boss James Comey THE hysterical reporting of Donald Trump’s sacking of FBI boss James Comey ignores one thing: the facts. We’re told the US President sacked Comey to stop him investigating his campaign’s alleged collusion with the Russian government to influence last year’s election. Democratic congresswoman Maxine Waters even claimed on US cable network MSNBC last week that Russian President Vladimir Putin helped Trump “develop” his campaign slogans. True, Waters admitted, there was no evidence of any collusion, but “calling Hillary crooked, the ‘lock her up, lock her up,’ all of that was developed, I think that was developed strategically with people from the Kremlin, with Putin”.  ::) This is seriously nuts, yet the MSNBC host didn’t question it. In fact, the media questions few anti-Trump claims in a manic desperation to write their dream story — Trump sacked Comey because he, himself, is corrupt. But there is a serious problem with this story — the three letters that led to Comey’s sacking and prove Trump had no choice. The first is from Deputy Attorney-General Rod Rosenstein, who worked for Democratic president Bill Clinton and is so respected by both sides of politics that the Senate confirmed his nomination by 94 votes to 6. On May 9, Rosenstein wrote a report to his boss, Attorney-General Jeff Sessions, concluding that Comey had overstepped his authority as FBI director when he had announced during the campaign the FBI was dropping its case against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton for having used a private email server when she was Secretary of State. Rosenstein said that call was not Comey’s to make. His job was simply to present the FBI’s evidence to President Barack Obama’s attorney-general and let her decide. Instead, Comey had “announced his own conclusions about the nation’s most sensitive criminal investigation”, and then made it worse by publicly criticising Clinton anyway. “The director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation,’ wrote Rosenstein, a veteran public prosecutor. “It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.” Rosenstein cited a long list of former attorneys-general and deputy attorneys-general from both sides of politics, as far back as the Ford administration, who had condemned Comey. For instance, former attorney-general Michael Mukasey, who served under president George W. Bush, said Comey had “stepped way outside his job”. Another Bush appointee said he had been left “astonished and perplexed”. Eric Holder, Obama’s deputy attorney-general, agreed Comey had “violated longstanding Justice Department policies and traditions”. Rosenstein wrote that a decision to sack Comey “should not be taken lightly”, but “the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a director who understands the gravity of the mistakes, and pledges never to repeat them”. But Comey had “refused to admit his errors”, and so “cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions”. Having read Rosenstein’s report, Attorney-General Jeff Sessions wrote to Trump recommending Comey be sacked: “The director of the FBI must be someone who follows faithfully the rules and principles.” Trump then told Comey he was fired, because it was “essential that we find new leadership for the FBI that restores public trust and confidence”. He was doing this, he said, even though “I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation”. So what on earth is the scandal here? What is so unjustifiable about Comey’s sacking? True, Trump has, with his big mouth and dangerous indiscipline, made muddy what was clear, later saying he would have sacked Comey anyway and did so because of the FBI’s Russian investigation. Comey kicked that story along by claiming through “friends” that Trump had tried to stop him from investigating the alleged links between Russia and former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who was sacked by Trump for lying. Comey claims Trump in February told him: “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy.” But was that just Trump issuing an order or just stupidly expressing a hope? Curiously, just a week before his sacking, Comey testified on oath to a Senate committee that he had never been “told to stop something for a political reason”. “It’s not happened in my experience.” Nor has any FBI investigation been stopped. Instead, Rosenstein has since also appointed a special prosecutor to also check any links between the Trump campaign and Russia. Yet the media is full of hyperventilating stories of Trump sacking a brave FBI boss for investigating the President’s crimes. As fake news goes, this one’s on steroids.

No source so absolutely worthless.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on May 22^nd, 2017 at 10:49am:

Fake News on Steroids... and the biggest witch hunt on a US President in America's history being pushed all along by leftist media being run by the deep state...

Did somebody say Deep State?

How about we get a reality check in here for Karnal and Co?

Is this the same Hillary Clinton who was Secretary of State when this went down?

The 2012 Benghazi attack that September was coordinated against two United States government facilities in Benghazi, Libya by members of the Islamic militant group Ansar al-Sharia.

At 9:40 p.m., September 11, members of Ansar al-Sharia attacked the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi resulting in the deaths of U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith.[6][7] Stevens was the first U.S. ambassador killed in the line of duty since 1979.[8]

At around 4:00 a.m. on September 12, the group launched a mortar attack against a CIA annex approximately one mile (1.6 km) away, killing CIA contractors Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty[7][9][10] and wounding ten others. At the behest of the CIA, top U.S. officials initially described the attacks as the results of a spontaneous protest triggered by recently released anti-Muslim video, Innocence of Muslims.[11] Subsequent investigations showed that the attack was premeditated – although rioters and looters not acting with the group may have later joined in after the attacks began.[12][13][14]

The National Review later labeled the attack Battle of Benghazi,[15] a name that has since been used to refer to the attacks by several media outlets. There is no definitive evidence that al-Qaeda or any other international terrorist organization participated in the Benghazi attack.[16][17][18] The United States immediately increased security worldwide at diplomatic and military facilities and began investigating the Benghazi attack.[19][20] Many Libyans have condemned the attacks. They staged public demonstrations condemning Ansar Al-Sharia, which had been formed during the 2011 Libyan civil war in opposition to leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.[21][22][23]

State Department officials were later criticized for denying requests for additional security at the consulate prior to the attack. In her role as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton subsequently took responsibility for the security lapses.[24] On August 6, 2013, it was reported that the U.S. had filed criminal charges against several individuals alleged to have been involved in the attacks, including militia leader Ahmed Abu Khattala.[25] Khattala has been described by Libyan and U.S. officials as the Benghazi leader of Ansar al-Sharia. The U.S. Department of State designated Ansar al-Sharia as a terrorist organization in January 2014.[26][27][28]

Khattala was captured in Libya by U.S. Army Special Operations Forces, who were acting in coordination with the FBI, in June 2014.[29]


Hillary Clinton has BLOOD on her hands - Guilty of a monumental dereliction of duty which cost lives. Don't hear the Media screaming about this one huh? Nor did they when she f....d up!

What does that have to do with an FBI investigation into her email server, Red?

Are you suggesting Trump fired Comey because Hillary didn't put extra security on in a foreign embassy?

red baron wrote on May 22^nd, 2017 at 2:10pm:

How about we get a reality check in here for Karnal and Co? Is this the same Hillary Clinton who was Secretary of State when this went down? The 2012 Benghazi attack that September was coordinated against two United States government facilities in Benghazi, Libya by members of the Islamic militant group Ansar al-Sharia. At 9:40 p.m., September 11, members of Ansar al-Sharia attacked the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi resulting in the deaths of U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith.[6][7] Stevens was the first U.S. ambassador killed in the line of duty since 1979.[8] At around 4:00 a.m. on September 12, the group launched a mortar attack against a CIA annex approximately one mile (1.6 km) away, killing CIA contractors Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty[7][9][10] and wounding ten others. At the behest of the CIA, top U.S. officials initially described the attacks as the results of a spontaneous protest triggered by recently released anti-Muslim video, Innocence of Muslims.[11] Subsequent investigations showed that the attack was premeditated – although rioters and looters not acting with the group may have later joined in after the attacks began.[12][13][14] The National Review later labeled the attack Battle of Benghazi,[15] a name that has since been used to refer to the attacks by several media outlets. There is no definitive evidence that al-Qaeda or any other international terrorist organization participated in the Benghazi attack.[16][17][18] The United States immediately increased security worldwide at diplomatic and military facilities and began investigating the Benghazi attack.[19][20] Many Libyans have condemned the attacks. They staged public demonstrations condemning Ansar Al-Sharia, which had been formed during the 2011 Libyan civil war in opposition to leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.[21][22][23] State Department officials were later criticized for denying requests for additional security at the consulate prior to the attack. In her role as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton subsequently took responsibility for the security lapses.[24] On August 6, 2013, it was reported that the U.S. had filed criminal charges against several individuals alleged to have been involved in the attacks, including militia leader Ahmed Abu Khattala.[25] Khattala has been described by Libyan and U.S. officials as the Benghazi leader of Ansar al-Sharia. The U.S. Department of State designated Ansar al-Sharia as a terrorist organization in January 2014.[26][27][28] Khattala was captured in Libya by U.S. Army Special Operations Forces, who were acting in coordination with the FBI, in June 2014.[29] Hillary Clinton has BLOOD on her hands - Guilty of a monumental dereliction of duty which cost lives. Don't hear the Media screaming about this one huh? Nor did they when she f....d up!

The media dd in fact scream. But they didnt blame Clinton for and action she was not directly involved in. Any more than the media blame GWB for 9/11.  Not every bad thing that happens can be sheeted home to whomever is in charge.

Not at  all Karnal, I'm simply comparing proportionate responses

The nexus of this is that Trump fires an F.B.I. Head and the U.S. Media screams for his head on a platter

I don't recall the mainstream Press making such a fuss over Hillary Clinton when she royally stuffed up the Embassy crisis when she was Secretary of State. Because of her utter ignorance of what was going on PEOPLE GOT KILLED.

I don't recall the mainstream Press howling for her head

One thing is crystal clear, the mainstream media are in the Clinton's pocket

Trump has plenty of faults, any number of them. But him calling out the Mainstream Press for what it is, was reality in action

Quote:

The nexus of this is that Trump fires an F.B.I. Head and the U.S. Media screams for his head on a platter

Incorrect again Mr Baron.  Of coures the sacking was reported.  If Turnbull sacked the head of ASIO or the AFP it would be reported.  No big deal.

However, the schmedia got angsty, not at the moment of the firing, rather, when it became known that there was a credible suggestion Trump had tried to persuade Comey to drop an investigation not long before the sacking.

What was credible about it? 

There was a memo, puportedly from comey, though nobody has seen it.

This was after comey had testified before congress that nobody had tried to pressure him to drop the investigation.

Either the memo is baloney, or comey perjured himself.  Maybe both.

Try to reassess, this time incorporating these facts into the process.

... wrote on May 22^nd, 2017 at 4:10pm:

What was credible about it?  There was a memo, puportedly from comey, though nobody has seen it. This was after comey had testified before congress that nobody had tried to pressure him to drop the investigation. Either the memo is baloney, or comey perjured himself.  Maybe both. Try to reassess, this time incorporating these facts into the process.

We'll find when Comey appears before that Committee.  It must believe there is some credit to the allegation ~ otherwise, it would not bother with the exercise.

As you would say Aussie...show us the Credible Evidence

Most of this has been played out in the media...A media which is totally alienated to Trump because he had the gall to call them out for what they are

The media didn't and don't like that

They would love nothing more than their darling that crooked Hillary Clinton reinstated so the status quo could be resumed

All those aholes in bed together bullsh....g away to the public.
Finally someone stood up and spoke to the public about what a total bunch of bullsh.t artists the mainstream press is

red baron wrote on May 22^nd, 2017 at 4:33pm:

As you would say Aussie...show us the Credible Evidence

I did not say there was credible evidence.  I said....credible suggestion.


Quote:

Most of this has been played out in the media...A media which is totally alienated to Trump because he had the gall to call them out for what they are

I reckon the complete reverse. All they did was publish and expose the bullshit coming out of the White House.  Trump etc thought they could say whatever they like and a compliant schmedia would just publish it as Gospel.


Quote:

The media didn't and don't like that

You mean the White House did not like that.


Quote:

They would love nothing more than their darling that crooked Hillary Clinton reinstated so the status quo could be resumed

Ask yourself this Mr Baron and the answer will demonstrate better than I can just what twaddle that comment is.

After Nixon was booted, who became President?


Quote:

All those aholes in bed together bullsh....g away to the public. Finally someone stood up and spoke to the public about what a total bunch of bullsh.t artists the mainstream press is

Except with Trump, they got it right, 100%.

red baron wrote on May 22^nd, 2017 at 3:46pm:

I don't recall the mainstream Press making such a fuss over Hillary Clinton when she royally stuffed up the Embassy crisis when she was Secretary of State.

Are you kidding? You've just posted what Hillary was supposed to be guilty of: being Secretary of State when the Libyan embassy rejected requests for extra security.

And all I heard through the recent campaign was Hillary being a murderer, incompetent, criminal and corrupt (and I heard this in the media). For some reason, the US public believed all this and voted in Trump.

So now that we've looked at the actual facts, let's compare and contrast.

Hillary: having nothing to do with Libya, but being Secretary of State at the time - murder and incompetence. Having a private email server at the advice of her staff - criminal and corrupt.

Trump: sacking the FBI director for refusing to drop an investigation into possible treason. 

I'd say Hillary's looking pretty good, wouldn't you?

DRAIN THE SWAMP.

... wrote on May 22^nd, 2017 at 4:10pm:

What was credible about it?  There was a memo, puportedly from comey, though nobody has seen it.

It was the White House minutes of Trump's meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister, leaked to the FAKE media. In it, Trump crows about how he got rid of all this Russia nonsense by sacking Comey.

Shurely shome mishtake, no?

Aussie wrote on May 22^nd, 2017 at 4:16pm:

... wrote on May 22nd, 2017 at 4:10pm: What was credible about it?  There was a memo, puportedly from comey, though nobody has seen it. This was after comey had testified before congress that nobody had tried to pressure him to drop the investigation. Either the memo is baloney, or comey perjured himself.  Maybe both. Try to reassess, this time incorporating these facts into the process. We'll find when Comey appears before that Committee.  It must believe there is some credit to the allegation ~ otherwise, it would not bother with the exercise.

These are details of a call Comey had with Trump, supposedly in February. Comey's a cop. He took notes.

Presumably, Trump's unhinged Tweet about releasing his own "taped" conversations with Comey is a response to Comey's threat to Trump to go public after he was sacked. It was Trump's infantile attempt to get in first.

You know, like his Tweet that Obama bugged Trump Tower.  McCarthyism!

... wrote on May 22^nd, 2017 at 4:10pm:

What was credible about it?  There was a memo, puportedly from comey, though nobody has seen it. IT HAS BEEN SEEN This was after comey had testified before congress that nobody had tried to pressure him to drop the investigation.  HE DID NO SUCH THING Either the memo is baloney, or comey perjured himself.  Maybe both. Try to reassess, this time incorporating these facts into the process.

what facts?  all you spoke about were lies.

longweekend58 wrote on May 22^nd, 2017 at 5:26pm:

... wrote on May 22nd, 2017 at 4:10pm: What was credible about it?  There was a memo, puportedly from comey, though nobody has seen it. IT HAS BEEN SEEN This was after comey had testified before congress that nobody had tried to pressure him to drop the investigation.  HE DID NO SUCH THING Either the memo is baloney, or comey perjured himself.  Maybe both. Try to reassess, this time incorporating these facts into the process. what facts?  all you spoke about were lies.

For gods sake, you can't just deny things exist becasue you didnt know about them.  It should prompt you to go check out whether what you belive is actually true, but you make no effort whatsoever and get caught out time and again. 

You already owe me an apology, and will soon owe me another. 

Listen to Comey.  Actually listen to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-dW59Fu1hg

I repeat:  Either the memo (which NO, nobody has seen - prove me wrong) is baloney, or Comey perjured himself. (you did watch the video, right?)

The trap was set, and they caught a rat:

http://media.salon.com/2017/05/trump-comey-tweet-620x412.jpg

He said that on the 3rd May.  He was fired on the 10th.  We are yet to be told what happened in  the intervening period.

If there are 'tapes' TRump would be proved a liar although that is nothing new.

longweekend58 wrote on May 22^nd, 2017 at 6:33pm:

If there are 'tapes' TRump would be proved a liar although that is nothing new.

There is a tape. A tape of Comey perjuring himself.  Or in other words, being proven a liar.

You saw it...or did you?

And what about that memo?  Anyone seen it yet?

... wrote on May 22^nd, 2017 at 6:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 22nd, 2017 at 6:33pm: If there are 'tapes' TRump would be proved a liar although that is nothing new. There is a tape. A tape of Comey perjuring himself.  Or in other words, being proven a liar. You saw it...or did you? And what about that memo?  Anyone seen it yet?

Comey has memos that prove his version. Trump has nothing since the 'tapes' dont actually exist. And in a competition between who is telling the truth, Trump will always lose given his horrific record for lying.

... wrote on May 22^nd, 2017 at 6:49pm:

There is a tape. A tape of Comey perjuring himself.  Or in other words, being proven a liar.

There must be, Honky. Mr Trump would never say it if it wasn't true.